This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Thought about editing my post after I wrote it to specify the upgrade -- Meant Donald would be an upgrade over Ronnie (if/when Mathews goes down)Really? I know they are both former first rounders but before this signing I was higher going into 2014 on Mathews than I ever was on Brown
Only due $1.9 mil. Imagine Donald will play Ronnie Brown role. And will be an upgrade if/when Mathews goes down.
Marginal....disagree, he's going to be a force. Let's see what they do with their O-line and QB.
That's how I see it.Thought about editing my post after I wrote it to specify the upgrade -- Meant Donald would be an upgrade over Ronnie (if/when Mathews goes down)Really? I know they are both former first rounders but before this signing I was higher going into 2014 on Mathews than I ever was on Brown
Only due $1.9 mil. Imagine Donald will play Ronnie Brown role. And will be an upgrade if/when Mathews goes down.
Wow, that's a bit steep IMO. Basically took champ's salary and gave it to Talib. Hope Elway knows what he is doing.
What?
You don't know how the contract is loaded, and based on previous contracts Elway doesn't front load as he hates dead money.
Annual salaries are probably something like $7M, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 with the first 3 years and part of the 4th fully guaranteed.
Yeah, makes sense for DEN and NO to go all in for the next couple years (especially DEN), as they can just go in to a total re-build when their QBs are done.
SD is thinking they have zero depth behind mathews.
That really isn't a fair comparison here. Mendenhall got the opportunity to be a starter, did well with that for a few years, got hurt and was not the same RB again. He saw little interest as a free agent and signed with the Cardinals pretty much because no other team wanted him, didn't do much and then retired.
The Broncos needed the cap space to sign Peyton Manning. So yes, they were in the Superbowl because of their cap space.
All three of those statements are 100% accurate. I know I get annoyed when a team I like goes bonkers in FA for just those reasons though. If a team started fresh with $133mil to blow, you could build a team in FA. But by overpaying FA's, you're cutting yourself out of being able to go get the guys you really want because you're beholden (cap and dead cap money) to the ones you overspent for last year, and the year before that, etc.
It wasn't my point to say that managing the cap is UNimportant.
Again, to be clear, I'm not saying that all free agent money is good free agent money. In fact, it's the opposite.
The $11M the Broncos paid Bailey last year killed their secondary and between that, Seller's deal and Manning's deal, the Broncos were thin on the O-line.
Because if Talib continues to battle injuries, or turns back into an ####### now that he's made his money, and you want to cut him, you can't do so without accelerating all that guaranteed money onto your cap. You were saying earlier that teams lose because the players that they paid to perform didn't play well. Well, in order for that to be true, they need to get paid first. In virtually every instance you're describing, the team expected the player to contribute a value deserving of the contract they're giving them. Not many teams sign players to big money not expecting it to work out.
That's not true. They ran out of steam because their good players got injured.
You're completely missing the point. Injuries happen in the NFL. If you have no quality depth because you have $11M tied up with Champ Bailey, then you end up paying the price when the inevitable injuries happen.
Regarding the bolded - That's not what I meant/you misunderstood. You need to take it at face value...I'm simply talking about talent. As an easy example, Talib is talented but Saffold is not.
I'm not completely missing the point. As of August 2nd last year, after they had accounted for Bailey, Manning, Welker, et. al. they were still nearly $10m under the cap.
And talent falls off. Julius Peppers isn't as talented as he once was. Neither is Demarcus Ware. They got released because their cap numbers were well in excess of what they can contribute at this point. If their salaries were guaranteed, that would be a major issue to their respective clubs, no? The Seahawks won the Super Bowl last year despite having guys like Sidney Rice and Zach Miller being the highest paid players on their team. If guys like Wilson, Sherman, and Thomas weren't giving them insane production at minimal cost, they would not have been able to bring in a guy like Michael Bennett on a one year deal and Cliff Avril on a cheap two year deal which obviously became a major component to their success.
Which is why the numbers in these contracts are bogus. They're structured so that teams can save money when the player's just not worth it anymore.
In Baseball I would agree. Teams have no limit there and what a guy makes is pretty irrelevant to how the team does.
You guys. You're not understanding what I wrote. And obviously I'm not being clear. Let's reel it back a little.Insein said:
The point you're missing is that your argument is entirely too simplistic. Of course, in theory, your approach makes sense "if the player actually improves your team". But what happens "if that player doesn't actually improve your team"? We could figure that out with the benefit of hindsight, but the real world is very different because players don't always perform to those contracts and you won't ever know what correct value is.
Very true.
Okay.I can't argue a point I wasn't making.
No. I'm good. Thanks.Okay.I can't argue a point I wasn't making.
Let's start fresh. You asked why fans care about contracts given to players. I, and some others, are stating that in a salary cap league, every dollar spent somewhere is a dollar that can't be spent somewhere else.
So are we done, or do you wanna go back into further detail on what we've been discussing?
I don't get why you are arguing this. It's real simple, the more you pay one guy the less you can spend on the rest of the team.
And you guys are just cherry picking my argument.
